Adding RBE as a submodule #46194 #46196
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
This is a needed step, but the build also needs to be updated to actually build RBE in the correct place. Look in here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/bootstrap/doc.rs |
projektir
force-pushed
the
rbe-submodule
branch
from
cd243ce
to
8b3f375
Compare
kennytm
added
the
S-waiting-on-author
|
Triage: this is blocked on rust-lang/rust-by-example#962 to get tidy to pass. |
carols10cents
added
S-blocked
|
I think I'll leave this one to the docs team |
|
I merged the upstream issue. |
kennytm
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@projektir You may update the submodule to point at the latest RBE master now. |
|
It should already be pointed if I understand submodules right, this just needs to be refreshed? |
|
It doesn't look like it. Maybe you forgot to push the new commit? |
projektir
force-pushed
the
rbe-submodule
branch
from
8b3f375
to
6f0ec5f
Compare
kennytm
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
At least one RBE sample is failing. Our $PATH doesn't contain |
|
That's marked as runnable because the playground does... I would be okay with ignoring it in RBE, I think, as it's not like it's that important anyway. |
shepmaster
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@projektir If I am following along correctly, I think you will need to update the submodule reference in this PR again. |
projektir
force-pushed
the
rbe-submodule
branch
2 times, most recently
from
04ebd7a
to
e161009
Compare
projektir
force-pushed
the
rbe-submodule
branch
from
554e31c
to
152f52e
Compare
projektir
force-pushed
the
rbe-submodule
branch
from
152f52e
to
a2df413
Compare
|
@steveklabnik We fixed up the various linking issues and looks like this is passing again! 😄 |
kennytm
added
S-waiting-on-review
steveklabnik
approved these changes
Jan 14, 2018
|
@bors: r+ Thank you @projektir ; what should have been a simple PR has really been a wild ride. |
|
📌 Commit a2df413 has been approved by |
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
The build log is so long I can't see what the failure was. Since it's only on one arch, I'm assuming it was spurious. @bors: retry |
steveklabnik
added
relnotes
|
Was it this: "Build execution time has reached the maximum allowed time for your plan (180 minutes)."? Seems like the failed arch was Windows GNU. Hopefully spurious... |
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2018
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2018
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2018
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2018
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2018
…eveklabnik add Rust By Example to the bookshelf cc rust-lang#46194 With rust-lang#46196 freshly merged, we should add a link to the main docs distribution so people can find it! We discussed this at the docs team meeting today and decided to go ahead with adding it to the bookshelf.
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2018
…eveklabnik add Rust By Example to the bookshelf cc rust-lang#46194 With rust-lang#46196 freshly merged, we should add a link to the main docs distribution so people can find it! We discussed this at the docs team meeting today and decided to go ahead with adding it to the bookshelf.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adding RBE as a submodule to start issue #46194.